As Task Force members, we have talked to hundreds of citizens about partnerships. We have met with and received briefings from numerous City officials and have studied existing City processes. We have examined the practices of other cities and have heard from community groups and developers. Not content to hear details of past partnership arrangements, we have tried to fashion standards that will be responsive to the types of partnership proposals that are most likely to emerge in the future.

The more we have considered the important issues of when and how the City enters into a partnership with a private entity, the more we have become wary of processes that can be so unwieldy that no one is served. Rather than seeking to superimpose a major new partnership review system upon Seattle government, we instead propose to clarify and improve the present ways that partnership arrangements are negotiated and public benefit pursued.

Partnerships with private entities (including non-profit organizations) are pursued by City departments in order to achieve benefits for the public which would not materialize in the absence of the partnership. By far the most difficult challenge is gaining appropriate levels of public input and confidence in a proposed partnership arrangement in the examination of such benefits. The goal of our recommendations (see Section C) is to guarantee that review by the public and its elected representatives will be clear, timely, and intensive. The four central questions become:

What types of partnership proposals deserve special attention beyond that which is already provided by the Mayor, the Council, and City Departments?

The word partnership is used in so many different ways that partnership standards could easily cover all of the City’s transactions with outside parties, including vendors and the non-profit organizations which receive contracts to retrain workers or carry out after-school programs. Our recommendations embrace a much narrower definition of partnership arrangements that require special focus beyond the considerable attention that City departments, the Mayor, and Council already provide.

First, we focus only on partnerships that are directed toward the development of physical space; in which both the City and a private entity (including non-profit organizations) are engaged; where the City is seeking benefits for the public which would not otherwise be provided by the private entity; and where both the City and its partner have a financial interest.

Second, within that set of partnerships, we call for our new standards to automatically apply to a limited subset, which may number as few as five to ten partnership proposals per year. These are proposed partnerships which exceed $5 million in City investment. Investment in this case is not limited to cash, but applies more broadly to such things of value as City property and credit. Further partnerships that are attracting public interest would be subject to these standards by request of the Mayor or City Council.

When such a partnership is being considered, what specific issues should be examined on the public's behalf?

We believe the City and its citizens would benefit greatly from carrying out the same intensive public review every time a major partnership is proposed. Utilizing a protocol for that review will enable better comparison between projects and will aid in giving information to the public that is digestible and invites their input. The protocol also addresses the difficult technical question of defining multiple types of public benefit and, where possible, quantifying those benefits.

Our key recommendation is the detail of this protocol (see Attachment 1). We have developed a summary sheet (the cover page of the protocol) explicating such characteristics of the project as makeup of partnership, source of City revenue being used, bonding authority used, and project timeframe. After that summary is completed, the relevant City department would be required to provide answers to five major sets of questions relating to: the project’s relationship to City priorities; calculation of public benefit; assessment of related impacts; legal considerations; and citizen engagement.

This protocol would be used in conjunction with all of the targeted projects described above. In addition, the Mayor or City departments could decide to utilize the protocol in other cases where it would help to clarify the aims and impacts of a project.

At what points does review of partnerships occur?

The City strives to improve public-private partnerships at every step, from their inception to the conclusion of a partnership arrangement. Along this path, there are two key opportunities for citizen review (see Attachment 2).

First, we recommend that the City incorporate discussion of public-private partnerships in its regular goal setting processes, including budget, capital investment and planning processes. By establishing priority areas for partnerships before specific projects arise, and subjecting these priority areas to public review, the City will then more easily place projects within the context of its own goal setting.

Once priority areas are determined and subject to public review, potential projects will be sought through the Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Outcomes (RFO) process or will be unsolicited and proposed by interested private parties.

Potential projects are then subject to the review protocol. This is the point after the City indicates its desire or intention to pursue a partnership, but before negotiations with the private partner (including non-profit organizations) are completed. At this point, the basic dimensions of the partnership are clear and disclosable, but no final determination of the public’s benefit or investment will have been completed. The process of completing the protocol and subsequently providing additional information will compel the City to clarify its objectives and provide the public with indispensable information.

Who would make certain that the protocol's responses fully address the proposed partnership, and that the question of public benefit receives a complete airing?

As already stated, the targeted partnerships requiring the application of the protocol and other standards could be as few as five per year. Partnerships become targeted by City Council or Mayoral request or because they involve a City investment of more than $5 million. Under present practice, partnerships such as these are negotiated by the Mayor’s designee(s) within his staff or City departments, and are ultimately reviewed by the City Council in their normal course of business.

We feel strongly that these responsibilities must not shift. The Mayor and City Council are elected by the people and are accountable to them. Clouding that picture can make it more difficult to achieve significant public benefit from a major proposed partnership.

Key City staff as designated by the Mayor would be responsible for completing the protocol and ensuring that it is subject to public review. We recommend that the completed protocol be available for public comment, using a variety of means to ensure thorough discussion of public benefit. Use of the City website, a designated voice mail, an e-mail listserve, and municipal television would allow citizens a number of ways to comment on a project’s public benefit.

Finally, to assist City departments, the Council, and the public in evaluating public benefits, we recommend the creation of a project panel with a minimum of three persons. Panelists would be proficient in such areas as public finance, real estate, neighborhood planning, public engagement, and other special expertise as warranted by the nature of the project. Panelists should be selected through a means that guarantees their independence and the integrity of the process.

The panel would serve as a resource to City agencies. Upon the initial completion of the protocol, it would verify the information provided and review the protocol as the details of the project are developed.

----------------------------

Each of these four central questions is difficult. Even though public-private partnerships are common across the United States, we are aware of no city that has implemented clear review standards. Because we are traveling new ground, we endorse Mayor Schell’s suggestion that our Task Force be reconvened after one year to analyze the effectiveness of the standards that have been implemented and to recommend any changes to the Mayor and City Council.